ArticleCurrent medical science2023
Comprehensive Treatment Uncertainty Analysis and PTV Margin Estimation for Fiducial Tracking in Robotic Liver Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy.
Article in Current medical science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prospective planning comparison of magnetic resonance-guided vs. internal target volume-based stereotactic body radiotherapy of hepatic metastases - Which patients do really benefit from an MR-linac?Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to quantify the uncertainties of CyberKnife Synchrony fiducial tracking for liver stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) cases, and evaluate the required planning target volume (PTV) margins.
methodsA total of 11 liver tumor patients with a total of 57 fractions, who underwent SBRT with synchronous fiducial tracking, were enrolled for the present study. The correlation/prediction model error, geometric error, and beam targeting error were quantified to determine the patient-level and fraction-level individual composite treatment uncertainties. The composite uncertainties and multiple margin recipes were compared for scenarios with and without rotation correction during treatment.
resultsThe correlation model error-related uncertainty was 4.3±1.8, 1.4±0.5 and 1.8±0.7 mm in the superior-inferior (SI), left-right, and anterior-posterior directions, respectively. These were the primary contributors among all uncertainty sources. The geometric error significantly increased for treatments without rotation correction. The fraction-level composite uncertainties had a long tail distribution. Furthermore, the generally used 5-mm isotropic margin covered all uncertainties in the left-right and anterior-posterior directions, and only 75% of uncertainties in the SI direction. In order to cover 90% of uncertainties in the SI direction, an 8-mm margin would be needed. For scenarios without rotation correction, additional safety margins should be added, especially in the superior-inferior and anterior-posterior directions.
conclusionThe present study revealed that the correlation model error contributes to most of the uncertainties in the results. Most patients/fractions can be covered by a 5-mm margin. Patients with large treatment uncertainties might need a patient-specific margin.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.